From USCF webside
By Bill Hall
August 10, 2009
The USCF voted Friday night to revoke the memberships of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. Polgar and Truong appealed the revocations to the Board of Delegates on Saturday and the revocations were upheld by a vote of 55-21 (Polgar) and 58-18 (Truong).
Comments
Post: #157872 by machinelf on Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:39 am
As a life member of the USCF, I am deeply saddened to see how low a few key players have brought this organization. Goichberg and his cronies have all but destroyed the USCF, and for what? The myopic, selfish little political games they continue to play serve only themselves, and I am ashamed that they have managed to dupe so many members into thinking otherwise. Enjoy your little mountaintops while you can.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #157876 by xplor on Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:53 am
Can you elaborate? Can you name any member of the executive board since 2002 that Susan Polgar and company have not sued or threatened to sue? I am satisfied with the performance of the delegates this last weekend.xplor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #157905 by Jonathan_Hilton on Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:08 am
My only regret is that this did not happen at last year's meeting. Anyone who sues the USCF for $10 million should have his or her membership from the organization revoked, and certainly should not serve on the Executive Board. I am happy that the bylaws amendments along those lines passed more or less unanimously during open session.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #157915 by Harry Payne on Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:41 am
The People who tried (and failed) to destroy the USCF was none other than Susan Polgar and her hubby. They received what was just, and I am sure there is more(much more) justice to come from the Courts.
If Susan and Paul can find a mountain top, I would suggest they look around and see all those they have angered.
They might better serve themselves, by getting out of this mess with as little damage as they can. Providing Susan does not end up in a Federal Prison, along with Mr. Alexander.
But then that is just my take on it." Where there is no vision, the people Fail "In love of the game. Harry Payne
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #157937 by BugEater1 on Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:31 pm
The Executive Board action seems more like retaliation for fully legal actions than a rational reaction. Let the courts do their job, make decisions in the respective cases, or let out-of-court negotiations work. There is no need to do this harsh discipline as it will not lead to any particular improvements. Membership revokation only provides for further hang-ups -- I'd rather move on with more memberships than be penalized by not being able to play either Truong or Polgar in a rated event.One respondent mentions Federal Prisions -- well, that is not going to happen until someone is brought before Federal Court, and for violations of Federal code. The "Federal Prisions" arguement is an excellent example of fanning the flames of retaliation, and much more becomes an excellent justification for not doing the membership revokation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #157940 by fpawn on Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:58 pm
Anyone who sits on the Executive Board of a non-profit organization while suing the organization for $25 Million (later reduced to $10M) deserves the wrath of the Delegates. There is simply no way you can effectively lead the organization while suing it for nearly 10 times its annual budget. Fortunately, the vast majority of Delegates present in Indianapolis understood this concept. The appeals were rejected by about a 3:1 margin.
The action by the Delegates mirrors the results of the recent election, when the candidates endorsed by Polgar were defeated by a similar margin. Except for a few vocal dissidents, I think we can safely say that the USCF members have spoken loud and clear.
Michael Aignerhttp://fpawn.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #157943 by TPGriffin76 on Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:13 pm
fpawn wrote:.The action by the Delegates mirrors the results of the recent election, when the candidates endorsed by Polgar were defeated by a similar margin. Except for a few vocal dissidents, I think we can safely say that the USCF members have spoken loud and clear.
Michael Aigner
Well summarized, and accurate. Thank you, delegates, for representing us well here and taking a logical course.
Now let's move on and play some chess.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #157954 by Jonathan_Hilton on Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:15 pm
BugEater1 wrote:I'd rather move on with more memberships than be penalized by not being able to play either Truong or Polgar in a rated event. One respondent mentions Federal Prisions -- well, that is not going to happen until someone is brought before Federal Court, and for violations of Federal code.
Actually, the "punishment" for Susan and Paul was very, very light. They were simply removed from the Executive Board in the most harmless way possible. They are no longer allowed to be USCF members, but they are still allowed to play in rated tournaments via the Tournament Membership route. That said, Polgar has played in only one serious USCF tournament in three years. Even if we hadn't allowed them to continue playing in rated events, it would not have been a tremendous loss to the chess world (in my opinion).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #157960 by bruce_leverett on Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:38 pm
BugEater1 wrote:One respondent mentions Federal Prisons -- well, that is not going to happen until someone is brought before Federal Court, and for violations of Federal code. The "Federal Prisons" arguement is an excellent example of fanning the flames of retaliation, and much more becomes an excellent justification for not doing the membership revokation.
There is in fact an ongoing Federal criminal case; here is a link to an article about it from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/us/18indict.html?_r=2
Of course, "innocent until proven guilty" is an important thing to remember here. But the implication is that it's gone beyond just two groups of chess organizers fighting with each other. Some government prosecuting attorney thinks that a crime has been committed, and thinks that he can get a conviction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #157983 by EnriqueHuerta on Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:19 pm
How does this affect Susan's FIDE representation? Will she no longer be listed under the USA?
- EnriqueEnrique Huerta Tucson, Az
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158003 by BugEater1 on Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:46 pm
Thank you for the NY Times reference. Having read that article, I found that neither Ms. Polgar, nor Mr. Truong, are defendants in that particular case.
Part of my objections to these membership revocations is that there appears to be no USCF violations. I've read the USCF Code of Ethics many times, and there is no language regarding bringing suit against the USCF.
As a USCF Certified TD, I'd rather have the option/obligation to take entries from Ms. Polgar and/or Mr. Truong. Now, I am obligated to reject their entry.
The membership revocations were just a bad move. The USCF should have let the court systems do their jobs.
Many of my chess opinions are concluded with "Go Play Chess! Go Have Fun!" (Sam Harris, Justice of the Peace, March 20, 2001). Seems appropriate to conclude with that quotation here, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158004 by RichTNYC on Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:47 pm
fpawn wrote:There is simply no way you can effectively lead the organization while suing it for nearly 10 times its annual budget.
Well the immediate result of this is that the USCF has lost two more members, and their dues. This puts the organization into an even deeper financial hole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158007 by chexmates on Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:51 pm
fpawn wrote:Anyone who sits on the Executive Board of a non-profit organization while suing the organization for $25 Million (later reduced to $10M) deserves the wrath of the Delegates. There is simply no way you can effectively lead the organization while suing it for nearly 10 times its annual budget. Fortunately, the vast majority of Delegates present in Indianapolis understood this concept. The appeals were rejected by about a 3:1 margin.
The action by the Delegates mirrors the results of the recent election, when the candidates endorsed by Polgar were defeated by a similar margin. Except for a few vocal dissidents, I think we can safely say that the USCF members have spoken loud and clear.
Michael Aigner
the members have not spoken loud and clear. Not even 10% of members vote in the elections. How is that speaking loud and clear? and i understand the lawsuit situation, but what legally justifies revoking their memberships (point at the lawsuit if u wish, but i mean what was the illegal function that made the ruling? is it illegal to sue the federation?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158017 by Harry Payne on Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:12 pm
chexmates wrote:fpawn wrote:Anyone who sits on the Executive Board of a non-profit organization while suing the organization for $25 Million (later reduced to $10M) deserves the wrath of the Delegates. There is simply no way you can effectively lead the organization while suing it for nearly 10 times its annual budget. Fortunately, the vast majority of Delegates present in Indianapolis understood this concept. The appeals were rejected by about a 3:1 margin.
The action by the Delegates mirrors the results of the recent election, when the candidates endorsed by Polgar were defeated by a similar margin. Except for a few vocal dissidents, I think we can safely say that the USCF members have spoken loud and clear.
Michael Aigner
the members have not spoken loud and clear. Not even 10% of members vote in the elections. How is that speaking loud and clear? and i understand the lawsuit situation, but what legally justifies revoking their memberships (point at the lawsuit if u wish, but i mean what was the illegal function that made the ruling? is it illegal to sue the federation?)
There are three types of members: 1. Those who do what gets done.2. Those who watch what gets done.3. Those who have no clue whats been done
Yourself, bug-eater, and Rich seem to be lost somewhere in that 3rd group. It might help, if you at least take the time to appraise yourselves of a few of the "facts". It is painfully plain you do not have much knowledge of the issues. A common problem with most supporters of Susan and her hubby. They only know what Susan and her hubby tell them.
Just my take on it.
" Where there is no vision, the people Fail "
In love of the game. Harry Payne
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158019 by chexmates on Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:19 pm
harry, I've read both sides. But you conveniently refused to answer my last question. What justifies revoking their memberships? Is there something in the bylaws that says that you cannot sue? I understand opinions of the situation, but what do the laws themselves say? The laws speak louder than "well I think because..." answers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158023 by BugEater1 on Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:35 pm
Ahh! There it is! Character assassinations. Some people just get off on character assassination with their chess involvement. I'd rather play chess. I'd rather play chess without the character assassination. As a TD, I prefer more people available to play chess, rather than 2 less internationally titled players.
Taking the USCF to court is not a violation of USCF policy.
Where Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong are concerned, I can certainly agree with removal from the Executive Board. Removal from the membership lists was quite clearly retaliation, a very strong over-reaction, and totally unwarranted.
"Go Play Chess! Go Have Fun!" (Sam Harris, Justice of the Peace, March 20, 2001)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158027 by texasrob on Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:58 pm
Shades of grey! I understand why they needed to be removed, since involving the Federation in legal disputes puts the Federation at risk, and burdens it with mounting legal expenses. Many of us where at the crossroads, and some felt this was the quickest and easiest solution. Before we rush to pat ourselves on the back, we should recognize that the legal disputes will continue for years to come.I have a problem with an organization that can condone murderers, rapist, and other assorted criminals to be members, but needs to remove the membership of two with a political and legal dispute. I am for removing from governance, but I do not see revoking life member’s memberships. Where is our concern for those that have contact with our scholastic members and we do not check their background or remove their memberships? This seems selective, and maybe now we should think of having a mechanism for these people to play rated games and receive Chess Life, but not be members.Robert SturgeonSecretary - Texas Chess AssociationAlternate Delegate - TexasPlease note: Nothing I post here represents the opinions of anyone but myself
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158053 by alkanet96 on Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:53 pm
Great decision! Great logic! Now you have to take Women Chess Champion title from Polgar and give it to Mr. Goichberg. And do not forget to punish all members who do not agree with your wise moves!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158055 by oldtimer on Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:02 pm
It's a good day for the USCF. Regardless of your feelings for the USCF board or other politicians, Paul Truong has had a great deal of time to explain why three computers said he placed thousands of pornographic and slanderous messages on the internet. Polgar had plenty of time to explain why her and Paul didn't admit that she was married until just before the end of the election. Some may buy Polgar explanation for her husband's apparent behavior or the fact that her internet expert is now charged with an internet crime but my guess is that the number of people who believe her explanations is growing smaller by the hour. We need to help this people along by continuing to let members know the facts. Nothing more or less. It's our obligation to chess and the USCF. Thank you delegates for your votes and service to the organization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158073 by Randy Hough on Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:49 am
To correct two of the misstatements above: organizers are not obligated to reject their tournament entries, as they're still allowed to play if they wish. And as life members, they weren't paying any dues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158077 by chessoffice on Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:08 am
chexmates wrote:harry, I've read both sides. But you conveniently refused to answer my last question. What justifies revoking their memberships? Is there something in the bylaws that says that you cannot sue? I understand opinions of the situation, but what do the laws themselves say? The laws speak louder than "well I think because..." answers.
The bylaws say that the Executive Board "may revoke or suspend the membership of any member for good cause" and continue, "In the event that the Executive Board shall revoke or suspend the membership of an individual or affiliate....., it shall, prior to taking such action, give to the individual or affiliate 30 days written notice of the proposed action. Within said time said individual or affiliate may submit in writing to the Executive Board reasons why such actions should not be taken. The Executive Board may thereafter, if it sees fit, act upon the written suggestion or set a date for a hearing to be held at or prior to the next Annual Meeting of the Federation, but before the meeting of the Board of Delegates. Any person or affiliate aggrieved by any action of the Executive Board may appeal to the Board of Delegates at the said Annual Meeting if the action is taken at said meeting, or at the next meeting of the Board of Delegates. The Board shall affirm, reverse, or modify the action of the Executive Board."
For the official list of causes provided together with the 30 days notice go to uschess.org, click "About USCF," then "Governance," then "Reports," and then "2009.07.06-Polgar Suspension" and "2009.07.06-Truong Suspension."
Bill Goichberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158079 by chessoffice on Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:18 am
texasrob wrote:Shades of grey! I understand why they needed to be removed, since involving the Federation in legal disputes puts the Federation at risk, and burdens it with mounting legal expenses. Many of us where at the crossroads, and some felt this was the quickest and easiest solution. Before we rush to pat ourselves on the back, we should recognize that the legal disputes will continue for years to come.I have a problem with an organization that can condone murderers, rapist, and other assorted criminals to be members, but needs to remove the membership of two with a political and legal dispute. I am for removing from governance, but I do not see revoking life member’s memberships. Where is our concern for those that have contact with our scholastic members and we do not check their background or remove their memberships? This seems selective, and maybe now we should think of having a mechanism for these people to play rated games and receive Chess Life, but not be members.
Yes, criminals can be USCF members and indeed the federation has a prison chess program, as we feel that chess has redemptive value. However, murderers have not murdered the USCF. Suing the USCF for $10 million is an attempt to destroy the USCF, and the other causes charged such as illegally accessing USCF's confidential lawyer-client privilege emails also have damaged the USCF.
Bill Goichberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158080 by Jet Schizo on Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:24 am
By suing the USCF for $10 million, the effect was to strip the federation of money given to it by us - the members. The money comes from our pockets - our membership fees and donations. Money that was supposed to go to advancing chess - bringing chess to children and the world at large. The law suit sought to take our contributions and place them in the pockets of Polgar and Truong.
That is disgusting on every level. It would also tend to dampen the energy of those who regularly contribute to the US chess cause via the USCF as well as corporate sponsorship. Who wants to have their corporate name mixed up with any of this? It will take years to get rid of this problem and US chess will suffer. That is so very wrong considering the incredible talent we have in the US chess scene right now with Nakamura, Robson etc.
I am an attorney but I do not speak as to the technicalities of the case. I am just speaking on moral grounds. If Polgar and Truong felt hurt they should have sucked it up and taken it on the chin rather than trying to financially bust the USCF by going for the money we the members gave. Sometimes life calls on you to sacrifice your best interest for the interest of a greater good. By trying to get $10 million from the USCF, they put their own greed in front of US chess.
It was wrong on every level and they do not deserve membership.
USCF member Lee Donofrio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: #158098 by BugEater1 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:36 am
As a USCF certified TD, I have always been told that USCF membership was (is) required for participation in USCF rated events. Now, Mr. Hough (perhaps others) suggests that I will still be able to admit Polgar and/or Truong to events which I direct. If this is so, then what is the purpose of the membership revokations? What is achieved by these membership revokations?
Do I really get to admit non-USCF members to my events? Whether they be Polgar/Truong or someone completely new to USCF chess, or persons placed on USCF suspension, do really I get to admit them? -- And not be subsequently penalized?
Perhaps what is needed here is a complete definition of the recent Executive/Delegates Board actions.
Exactly what is required of entrants to USCF rated events, beyond paying any required entry fees?
I do strongly recommend that the USCF Governance provide some of the definitions which answer these questions. I really do not want to have my TD certificate revoked for admitting ineligible participants to my events. I'd rather be obliged to admit persons who are USCF members.